Search Results for: plan bay area

Boston Transit System Near Collapse

“The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority [MBTA] is in danger of collapsing under its own operating expenses and debt obligations, to the point that it can’t even pay for repairs that are vital to basic safety,” reports the Boston Globe. That conclusion is based on an official review of the MBTA that Governor Deval Patrick entrusted to former John Hancock CEO David D’Alessandro.

Up through the 1990s, the MBTA was funded by the state, with the agency effectively presenting a bill for its deficits to the legislature each year. Concerned that this failed to give transit officials incentives to control costs, the legislature in 1999 decided to give MBTA a fixed 20 percent share of state sales tax revenues and told it to operate out of those revenues. This was supposed to lead to reduced operating costs and greater investments in the long-term health of the system.

As the D’Alessandro report documents, this isn’t what happened. First, most costs, such as fuel, were outside of MBTA’s control. Even costs that were under MBTA’s control, such as payroll, ended up increasing far faster than planned. Meanwhile, the sales taxes that were supposed to fund MBTA’s deficits fell short of expectations. The result, over an eight-year period, was a $558 million shortfall.

Continue reading

The Importance of Cars; The Irrelevance of Transit

A new study published by the Cascade Policy Institute provides more evidence that the automobile is a key part of the nation’s economy. Though some may scoff that libertarian Cascade Policy is merely a part of some “right-wing conspiracy,” the study’s author, Randall Pozdena, is one Oregon’s most respected economists.

People in wealthy economies drive more; people who drive more live in wealthier economies. “What causes what?” asks Pozdena; do wealthier people drive more or does more driving make people wealthier? Based on his own research and a review of the literature, the answer, he finds, is “bidirectional causality”; that is, “VMT and the economy ’cause’ each other.”

Because of this, he concludes dryly, “policy interventions that reduce VMT will have an effect on the economy.” In particular, he means, reducing VMT will have a negative effect on the economy.

Continue reading

BART Megalomania

BART, the rail transit agency that consumes at least a plurality, if not most, of San Francisco Bay Area transportation dollars, wants to build an expensive rail connection to the Oakland Airport. The existing BART line stops 3.2 miles from the airport and air travelers can take the AirBART bus for $3. But BART wants to spent more than $500 million — at least $160 million per mile — building a rail connection directly to the airport, and then charge $6 for the ride. This would not be a BART line but an airport-style people mover.

The line was originally supposed to cost just $130 million and have stops serving local neighborhoods. But the higher-cost line now being planned would have no stops between the BART station and the airport. The San Francisco Examiner describes the line as “megalomania for sexy (but almost useless) transit construction projects.”

Continue reading

No BART Strike

The Census Bureau says that about 5.1 percent of commuters in the San Francisco-Oakland urban area take the Bay Area Rapid Transit to work, compared with 10 percent who ride bus or light rail and 72 percent who go by auto. So naturally, the media predicted complete chaos if BART workers went on strike, as they threatened to do yesterday.

As it happens, last-minute negotiations helped to avert the strike, possibly because union leaders realized that public sentiment was against them. Of course, we don’t yet know what final deal was reached; historically, transit agencies cave into the unions, but this time BART is feeling such a pinch that it may not have given up too much.

Continue reading

Glaeser Opposes High-Speed Rail

Edward Glaeser, one of the nation’s leading urban economists, thinks that high-speed rail is a waste, especially when it is planned for areas such as Alabama and Oklahoma. Not only is this inefficent, he notes, “intercity rail travelers are wealthier than car travelers,” so subsidies to high-speed rail are regressive.

“The case for subsidizing urban mass transit, like the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, is certainly debatable,” says Glaeser, “but it is much stronger than the case for subsidizing rail links between non-coastal cities.” Glaeser dismisses claims that high-speed rail will promote economic growth, saying that “no serious evidence supports such claims.”
For us to maintain our real freedoms, we must best viagra in india refrain from using up all fossil fuels, starting very soon indeed. frankkrauseautomotive.com tadalafil generic viagra Nowadays, several options are available that are painless and fast. The medication in itself prescription free tadalafil is not an aphrodisiac, nor does it treat hormonal imbalances. Avoid cialis canadian prices frankkrauseautomotive.com using condoms that are designed to increase your stimulation instead go for thick condoms that reduce the stimulation.
Meanwhile, a Government Accountability Office report on Obama’s high-speed rail plan raises many of the same questions posed by the Antiplanner. Noting that the Federal Railroad Administration has no reliable estimates of costs, ridership, and benefits, the GAO questions whether it is appropriate to spend billions of dollars of stimulus funds on an unknown and untested program.

In Defense of Paul Krugman

As an unabashed supporter of Democratic Party policies, Paul Krugman has made some enemies in conservative camps. So the right-wing blogosphere was gleeful to discover a 2002 column in which Krugman actually urged the Federal Reserve Bank to “create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.” As near as I can tell, the first to point this out was someone named Patrick who commented on a Reason blog.

Since then, Mark Thornton at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute has uncovered many other examples of Krugman saying things in 2001-2004 that promoted a Fed-led housing boom. “Krugman did cause the housing bubble,” Thornton concludes.

Continue reading

One-Acre Lots? Horrors!

The city of Tualatin, a suburb of Portland, zoned about 300 acres of land within its borders in a low-density zone allowing 1 to 6 homes per acre. This raises the specter of up to 300 new homes on one-acre lots, a notion that is sending regional planners into fits.

“We don’t enjoy getting into this type of confrontation,” says planning professor and Metro councilor Carl Hosticka. But “it’s not fair to the other jurisdictions,” meaning the ones the complied with high-density housing goals set by Metro, Portland’s regional planning authority.

Continue reading

High-Speed Rail Part 7: The Benefits of California HSR

The costs are exorbitant and rising. The risks are staggering. And the benefits? Even if you believe the Authority’s optimistic assumptions, you pretty much need a magnifying glass to see them.

What are the benefits claimed for the rail network? Less traffic congestion, less energy consumption, less air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, economic development, and, of course, saving people’s time.

Congestion: With or without rail, the EIS predicts that highway congestion will be far worse in 2020 than it is today. With rail, highways parallel to the rail lines will have an average of 3.8 percent less traffic than if rail is not built (p. 3.1-12). Rail will do most on the L.A. to San Diego route (which will probably be one of the last segments to be built), taking 7.9 percent of cars off the road. It will remove 6.6 percent of cars on the Bay Area-to-Central Valley portion. Elsewhere the relief will be less than 3.5 percent.

Continue reading

High-Speed Rail Part 6: The Risks of California HSR

Yesterday’s post on the costs of California high-speed rail discussed the likelihood that this megaproject will cost more than projected and the likelihood that taxpayers who pay for construction will have to pay again to rebuild the system every thirty or so years. Such costs are not so much a risk as a certainty. But there are many other risks involved with high-speed rail, some of which could unexpectedly drive up construction costs even more, and others affecting operations.

Some of these risks were identified in the senate oversight report on high-speed rail, including right-of-way, safety, and ridership risks. One important rish that was not brought out by the senate report is the risk that competing technologies will render high-speed rail obsolete.

Continue reading

High-Speed Rail Part 5: The Cost of California HSR

The California High-Speed Rail Authority wants to build an 800-mile rail network between Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, and (via Riverside) San Diego. Electrically-powered trains would travel over this network at speeds up to 220 miles per hour, allowing people to get from downtown San Francisco to downtown L.A. in about 2-1/2 hours.

It isn’t clear to me why any self-respecting San Franciscan would want to get to downtown L.A. in 2-1/2 hours, though I can imagine why they would want to quickly return. I suppose the Northern-Southern California cultural divide works both ways. But the four big questions are: How much will it cost? What kind of risks are involved? What are the likely benefits? And what are the alternatives? Today’s post will focus on cost.

By any measure, California high-speed rail will be a megaproject, the most expensive public-works project ever planned by a single U.S. state. Exactly how much it will cost is still uncertain — estimates published in various places have varied over a wide range. Just as uncertain is who is going to pay that cost. What is certain is that the $9.95 billion in bonds (of which $9 billion is for high-speed rail and $0.95 billion is for connecting transit improvements) that California voters will decide upon this November will be little more than a down payment.

Continue reading